If the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” and the recent school board
debate in Dover, Pennsylvania have anything to teach us, it is that in
America, evolution and Christianity have often reacted together in volatile
fashion. Such contention between the two concepts exists in America today
because many believe evolution and Christianity are incompatible concepts;
that is, if one is true, then the other cannot also be true. However,
I believe this common belief is flawed. In my view, evolution and Christianity
can clearly exist side by side. What’s more, Christianity and evolution
have much to gain through mutual interaction, since considering the two
concepts together makes much more sense than considering them separately.
Before I delve into the compatible and complementary relationship between
evolution and Christianity, I would like to briefly clarify the concept
of evolution. The modern theory of evolution is deceivingly simple.
There are two main ideas. The first is descent with modification, which
states that all species originated from a single common ancestor species
through divergence over time. The second idea is the mechanism that
drives descent with modification, which is natural selection. Natural
selection states that random variations within individuals affect their
chances of reproducing, and the variations most favorable to reproduction
tend to get passed down.
This dual-component theory of evolution is strictly a scientific theory,
meaning it can be verified as true or false through empirical tests.
However, the scientific theory of evolution has also led to the development
of a separate philosophy called Darwinian naturalism. According to naturalism,
everything in the universe can be explained through natural laws and
physical matter, since nothing besides the physical exists. Of course,
by denying the existence of anything besides the physical, the naturalist
also denies the existence of the spiritual God whom Christians believe
in. One strong advocate of Darwinian naturalism, Richard Dawkins, explains:
In a universe of physical forces and genetic replication, some
people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and
you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The
universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.1
Dawkins encapsulates the skeptical attitude most naturalists hold towards
Christianity. However, though Darwinian evolution is scientifically
accepted, this does not necessarily prove Darwinian naturalism to be
true. Why is this? It is because scientific theories are fundamentally
different from religious or philosophical ideas such as naturalism.
Scientific theories explain the physical causes of events—the
question of “How?”—while religion and philosophy seeks
to discover the metaphysical meaning behind events, or the question
of “Why?”. Science, by its very definition, restricts itself
to physical (and therefore non-theistic) explanations. Indeed, its empirical
foundation means science is only equipped for exploring physical explanations
and not spiritual concepts such as the existence of God.
Conversely, religion is not concerned with a scientific explanation
of how the universe works. Some people believe the entire Bible is literally
true, and that thus, Genesis provides a scientifically accurate explanation
of how God created life on Earth. However, Genesis in all likelihood
is not giving a strictly literal account of creation. One example would
be the discrepancy in the narration of man’s creation. Genesis
1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image
of God he created him; male and female he created them.” However,
in Genesis 2, God creates the first woman Eve much later than the first
man Adam. This discrepancy does not mean the Bible is false, for in
the end, God did eventually create men and women in His own image like
both accounts suggest; however, the discrepancy does show that we can
not determine from Genesis a scientific account of creation to its specific
details. Indeed, St. Augustine criticized those Christians attempting
to scientifically interpret scripture, stating, “Reckless and
incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow
on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous
false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books.”2 In summary, because science and
religion have different goals, they also occupy exclusive domains, meaning
true conclusions reached in one domain cannot establish corresponding
conclusions in the other.
The flaw in Darwinian naturalism now becomes clear. The naturalist
errs by attempting to use the scientific theory of evolution to prove
a religious “truth”—namely, that God does not exist.
However, because science strictly limits itself to physical explanations,
one cannot validly draw from evolution conclusions about non-physical
aspects of the universe: not even the conclusion that such non-physical
aspects do not exist. Think about it this way. My ears can detect a
certain frequency range of sound waves. But just because I cannot detect
sound waves whose frequencies do not fall within my range does not mean
those waves do not exist. It is just that I am not equipped to detect
them. Similarly, just because scientific theories like evolution have
only detected and studied physical aspects does not mean non-physical
aspects (such as God) do not exist. Rather, it is that empirical science
is only capable of studying the physical aspects of the universe, while
the Christian God is a God who dwells within the spiritual domain.
Yet, Darwinian naturalists continue to insist on drawing conclusions
about God from evolution. For example, biologist David Hull observes,
“The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent,
almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone
would be inclined to pray.”3 However, given the disjunctive domains
of science and religion, I do not see how Mr. Hull can reach such a
conclusion. Indeed, such a conclusion is no longer a scientific statement
that can be subjected to the empirical standards of the discipline.
Rather, it is just the kind of speculative theorizing naturalists accuse
Christians of doing.
So far, we have refuted the naturalist’s notion that one can
infer from science truths about God. But could certain aspects of evolution,
while not refuting Christianity, still undermine its position? After
all, we humans prefer to ground our beliefs on at least some concrete
evidence. Should the scientific evidence from evolution incline us to
believe Christianity is false? The Darwinian naturalist apparently thinks
so. However, I would argue that this naturalist view comes from misinterpreting
the evidence from evolution.
First, there is the issue of the uniqueness of human species. The descent
with modification aspect of evolution tells us that we humans had no
exalted beginning, but share the same ancestor as every other living
creature on Earth. We are one subset of an unremarkable group of primates,
inhabiting an insignificant planet, orbiting a pedestrian star located
at the outer fringes of one of billions of galaxies. From this scientific
evidence, the naturalist concludes that human beings could not possibly
have been the purpose of this universe, but merely the products of a
cosmic accident. However, I do not see how the naturalist can arrive
at such a claim from the scientific facts. For the fact stands that
evolution has still led to the development of thinking creatures with
awareness of self and the capacity to worship God. We may not have been
created in exactly the way described in Genesis; however, Genesis is
not necessarily a literally true description of our origins. What is
important is that through evolution, God’s ultimate goal to create
beings in His own image has been consummated. We can reason, speak,
love, and have fellowship with other human beings, which all reflect
the characteristics of God as revealed in the Bible.
Let us extend our analysis beyond evolution onto the universe. We discover
that the structure of our universe seems biased towards the creation
of life. For example, if the gravity constant was even a bit different
than it is, stars and planets could not have formed. Similarly, if the
strong force varied just a little from its current value, then atoms
would not exist. And if the electro-magnetic force were weaker or stronger
than it is, then most chemical reactions would not be able to occur.
It seems most of the laws governing the universe are tailor-suited for
the creation of life. From this evidence, it is not improbable that
God may have set the parameters of our world for the ultimate purpose
of producing beings in His image. At the very least, the naturalist
claim that the very structure of this universe is random cannot be counted
as a scientific statement based on evidence. Granted, the existence
of intelligent, self-aware beings capable of worshipping God does not
prove this universe is purposeful. But then again, we expect too much
from science when we ask it to irrefutably prove religious truths. As
mathematician Blaise Pascal remarks in the Pensees, “We
arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.”
Now, some Christians may disagree with the idea of God structuring
the universe to run by itself. They would object that this sounds like
a deistic version of God: a God who winds up the clock and then leaves
it alone to run by itself. And they would be right to object. The Christian
God is not a deistic God. He did not only create the universe, but is
even now in constant interaction with His world. He is a God you can
talk to and pray to, and a God who has the power to influence real events.
Fortunately, we are not confined to the deistic view of God when we
accept the theory of evolution. This is because the universe is not
completely determined by its physical laws. Modern physics has shown
us there is a level of uncertainty to every event, especially as you
approach the quantum level where physical laws give way to apparently
pure chance. This is what is known as the uncertainty principle. Quantum
indeterminacy, while not directly noticeable at the macro-level, nevertheless
exerts a profound influence on our world. For example, because the genes
driving natural selection are small enough to be subject to quantum
forces, random mutations can occur during transcription. This means
there is an element of genuine uncertainty in evolution. As biologist
Stephen J. Gould observes, “[A]ny replay of the tape would lead
evolution down a pathway radically different from the road actually
taken.”4
Naturalists such as Gould equate the uncertainty of natural selection
with randomness. To them, the fact that evolution could have taken any
number of paths shows that we are the result of pure chance, and our
existence without any purpose. However, this naturalist reasoning is
flawed because indeterminacy does not equal randomness and pure chance.
Indeterminacy only means the outcome very well could have been otherwise;
that it was not pre-determined by existing conditions. To clarify, in
an indeterminate situation, many options might be open such that one
does not have to pick a particular choice; however, one might still
choose a certain path for a reason and not randomly by the roll of a
dice. Indeterminacy certainly does not rule out the possibility that
God could, through the apparently random quantum effects, intervene
in this universe. After all, quantum effects seem random to science
only because science cannot empirically detect order at the quantum
level, and not because such order does not exist at all. Quantum indeterminacy
might prove to be the perfect way for God to intervene in evolution
without allowing us to know He is doing so. This is because for God,
it would be important that science cannot perfectly reveal His existence
and His plans, for then there would be no need for faith. Of course,
to the Christian, the exact mechanism by which God intervenes in this
world is not important. The only important matter is that God can do
so any time He wants.
Given the exclusive domains of science and religion, I sometimes wonder
why people insist the two conflict. I suspect a major reason for this
is that people believe science supplants religion in explaining how
nature works. However, science is not supplanting religion in this regard;
this was the role of science all along. Does the law of gravity endanger
Christianity? How about the laws of thermodynamics? The answer is that
no, these scientific explanations of how the universe works cannot undermine
Christianity at all. The laws of physics do not conflict with Christianity
because God can use these laws to run the universe. And what is true
in physics or chemistry should also hold true in biology. Indeed, it
would be rather strange for God to establish natural laws for every
scientific discipline, but make an exception for biology, where He decides
to supernaturally create life. Furthermore, the constancy of the laws
of nature does not limit or marginalize God, but rather testify to His
foresight and unchanging character. At the conclusion of Origin
of Species, Darwin himself marvels, “There is grandeur in
this view of life…that from so simple a beginning, endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”5
We have refuted the notion that God does not exist just because we
might be able to explain the universe without Him. However, people who
believe evolution and Christianity are incompatible will still ask,
why did God use evolution to create life, and ultimately human beings?
Why did God use such a circuitous method to achieve His goal when He
had the power to create all of creation in an instant? The answer to
this objection is two-fold. First of all, the Christian God does not
care that He has to wait billions of years for the first life forms
to evolve into human beings. He does not care because for Him, time
holds no meaning. God exists outside of time because he created time.
Popular theologian C.S. Lewis explains, “God is not hurried along
in the Time-stream of this universe any more than an author is hurried
along in the imaginary time of his own novel.”6 As the author
of time, God observes every moment in the story of evolution simultaneously
as the now even though they may span billions of years from
the human perspective.
But more importantly, God would be inclined to use evolution because
it reflects His love for His creatures. But what do I mean by this?
It may seem contradictory to say God shows His love to living beings
by governing them with such a blind, indifferent, and pitiless process
as evolution. After all, evolution is neither a kind nor gentle mechanism.
The strong live on the weak. And the “less fit” are doomed
to extinction. Critics will object, why does God leave His creatures
at the mercy of such an indifferent law?
To resolve this conflict, we must understand the nature of love, for
the Christian God is synonymous with love. Could God directly control
us to save us from suffering? Yes, He certainly can. But, would doing
so express true love? I think not. My reason for this is that true love
requires freedom. A love that is compelled is not true love, but only
a manipulated response. Philosopher Jean Sartre notes, “The man
who wants to be loved does not desire the enslavement of the beloved…If
the beloved is transformed into an automaton, the lover finds himself
alone.”7 In the same way, a creation directly controlled by God
in every minute detail would not be free, and thus incapable of truly
loving and worshipping God. Such a world would only be God’s little
sandbox, incapable of bringing glory to Him. Only by allowing His creatures
to live under purely natural laws such as evolution, would God grant
us a certain degree of autonomy from Him, and with it, the capacity
to truly love Him. Evolution not only does not entail atheism, as the
naturalists are wont to argue; it also perfectly fits God’s goal
of creating creatures capable of truly loving Him, while reserving for
Himself the power to intervene in their lives. Far from taking us farther
from God, learning about the natural world around us can only deepen
the Christian’s understanding and appreciation of his faith. Perhaps
the Gospel of John best echoes this sentiment when it states, “Then
you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John
8:32, NIV).
1 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: HarperCollins, 1995),
132-133.
2 Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.
3 David Hull, “The God of the Galapagos,” Nature 352 (1991):
485-86.
4 Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W.W.Norton, 1989), 50.
5 Darwin, The Origin, 560.
6 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1952), 168.
7 Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (New York: Pocket Books,
1984) 478.
Joung Park ‘08 is a philosophy major from Dallas, TX.